Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snowden Says It's Your Duty To Use an Ad Blocker (for Security)

Posted by timothy on from the block-the-right-signals dept.

AmiMoJo writes: In a long interview about reclaiming your privacy online, ex-NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden states that it's not just a good idea to use ad blocking software, it's your duty: "Everybody should be running adblock software, if only from a safety perspective. We've seen internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, or whoever it is, insert their own ads into your plaintext http connections. As long as service providers are serving ads with active content that require the use of JavaScript to display, that have some kind of active content like Flash embedded in it, anything that can be a vector for attack in your web browser — you should be actively trying to block these. Because if the service provider is not working to protect the sanctity of the relationship between reader and publisher, you have not just a right but a duty to take every effort to protect yourself in response." Other recommendations include encrypting your hard drive and using Tor to keep your internet use private.

5 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Most websites are funded by advertisements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want to kill the funding of my favorite sites by blocking advertisements.

    1. Re:Most websites are funded by advertisements by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if they server their own ads, fine ... but if it's the same list of companies I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw their CEO off a cliff, then there is no way in hell.

      As soon as you start adding the oily bastards and tracking companies into the mix, no matter for what website, it defeats the purpose entirely of blocking them.

      So, while you might think Spanky's House of Leather is a deserving site, if they pull in a dozen or so tracking companies that you would otherwise block ... what the hell is the point of enabling ads for them?

      It's the 3rd parties we can't trust. Temporarily pretending we can trust them because we like the site they're on is a terrible idea.

      Let companies get back to serving their own ads, from their own servers, using their own bandwidth and maybe we won't block them. But I won't pretend like I trust any of these ad companies for that one site. Not now not ever. Because to do that you have to let the very sites you know you don't trust run.

      The problem is these ad companies and tracking sites are everywhere. Which means you pretty much should trust them nowhere.

      The whole mess can't be trusted. And that's the problem.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. When you have idiots like Lauren Weinstein ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... making excuses for for ad blockers:

    Jul 19, 2015 - For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical (the full explanation is longer, but that's the thumbnail).ï

    and when someone points out his stupidity:

    So going to the bathroom when an ad appears is "unethical" ??? What about going to kitchen?? Because using technology to block ads has the exact same effect. It is not my job to support your broken business model. Furthermore, the last time I checked, my eyes belong to me so kindly fuck off with your bullshit "ethics" justifications.

    TL:DR; I guess only stupid people watch ads -- the rest of us are too busy doing something else.

    ... only to get get censored then this issue is far from settled.

    Even Mozilla has this stupid mindset WRT Do Not Track:

    The Do Not Track feature is turned off by default. /blockquote

  3. Re:No Worries by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're right, then the web advertising business has screwed itself royally and irrevocably, until Joe User gets a new computer.

    Seems like their only hope of coming back is to:
    1) Stop being offensive
    2) Deal with the fact that the market's shrunk for the next few years at least

    and if they ever want me to disable my ad blocker:
    3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.

    Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk. The same day that it registered with me that I could protect my computer's security by blocking ads, that's the day I put in an ad blocker.

    --PM

  4. You are more tolerant than me by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3) Sanitize ads and pay for cleanup if they deliver malware.

    See I'm not willing to even take a chance on the malware delivery. If there is even a remote chance of malware delivery then their ad will remain blocked until the end of time. I don't care if they are willing to pay for cleanup or not.

    Because the sad fact is that I was willing to put up with annoying, but I am NOT willing to put up with security risk

    You are more generous than I am. I'm not willing to put up with annoying OR with a security risk OR with tracking. If they want to pay me with cold hard cash, then and only then will I consider the limited circumstances under which I'm willing to be watched. Under no circumstances will I countenance a security risk or any irritation from advertisements.